Oh if Britain deposes the monarchy, William and Harry both and their wives would find a nice couple of game estates in Africa and live quite contendedly.
With the money they inherit from Diana and god knows what from Charles, the Queen Mother, and whoever else, they will be fine no matter what happens.

If Britain became a republic, especially within the next few decades, then it still will most likely have been impossible to convince all 10 provinces of Canada to sign on to any such thing. Tiny Prince Edward Island (pop 135,000) has the right to block any move to change the monarchy, even if all of the rest of Canada agrees, as do all other provinces. They can all move into Rideau Hall.

Even if all 16 states became republics, the family would still most likely be able to take care of itself (at least the central members) without going into the workforce for a couple of generations.

Joining this discussion, I would like to note the following. The course of history indicated that different parts of the UK, especially Scotland and Northern Ireland, attempted to overthrow the British rule. The British Empire was successful in quelling the unrest among rebels and withstanding the ravages of time. Alas… These glorious times passed away. The current times have prompted the members of the Commonwealth to examine the partnership through the prism of economic pragmatism. This may spur certain countries and the parts of the UK to demand sovereignty. At the same time, I strongly believe that the British monarchy is highly unlikely to be abolished any time soon. However, if it does happen, the British Royal family will be forced to exile the country. They may be given some of their estates to reside in. As for financial situation Duchess of Cornwall as a royal widow, it might be safely presumed that Prince Charles has taken care of her and possibly her children, especially his so-pro-organic godson. After all, Prince of Wales has got financial means to fund his organic whims.

__________________"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"

That is if he becomes King. If Britain became a republic during that time, they'd have to (shock, horror) work for a living and rent somewhere.

Why would they need to rent anywhere? The Queen privately owns both Balmoral Castle and Sandringham Estate. Neither of these are part of the Crown Estate and are her private property. Her father actually purchased Sandringham from his brother The Duke of Windsor, who had inherited it, after his abdication.

Both the Queen and The Prince of Wales have rather large private estates entirely outside of the realm of the state and Crown Properties that they are allowed to use.

Both the Queen and The Prince of Wales have rather large private estates entirely outside of the realm of the state and Crown Properties that they are allowed to use.

I know it's true for the Queen, but not sure about the Prince of Wales. His assets are tied up in the Duchy of Cornwall, aren't they?
If Britain becomes a republic, the Duchy of Cornwall reverts to Parliament, or no?

I think if Britain became a republic, the senior royals would be expected to move out of the country. The new order wouldn't want the ex-King around as a focus for people unhappy with things.

However, in the event that Britain stays a monarchy and the senior royals die in the order expected (ie, the Queen predeceases Charles and Camilla, and Charles dies before his sons), both William and Harry will need somewhere to live separate from their father if they get married in his lifetime; if they get married during the Queen's lifetime there'll be even fewer choices for them. I doubt Charles would give up Highgrove unless he was able to take over the running of Windsor; if he's King when William marries, it's possible that William will get Highgrove. Since Highgrove is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, I assume that'd rule out Harry as the next occupant.

The Royal Lodge would be one obvious place for one of the King's sons, but that would depend on Andrew finding somewhere else to live, which is unlikely. And given its association with the Duke of Windsor, I doubt that Fort Belvedere will be turned back into a royal residence any time soon.

The Crown Properites are VERY extensive. There are numerous estates that either William or Harry could live at, many of them stupendously grand.

However, one would expect that Charles would follow the example of his Mother who purchased either a home or paid for renevations to an estate that belonged to the Crown Property Service (Bagshot Park for Edward and Sophie) for each of her children to live in. The Queen purchased Anne's estate, she paid for the land and building of Sunninghill Park, and paid for the renevations to Bagshot Park for which Edward was given a VERY long lease to. Highgrove was purchased by Charles via his Duchy holdings.

William and Harry have each inherited enough money from their Mother to purchase their own home and live well without ever working. Additionally, they each are beneficiaries of trusts established by their grand mother The Queen, their grandfather The Earl Spencer, and by Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

If England were to become a republic it would be an extremely messy divorce. The line between what is the Queen's property and what is Crown Property is very blurred in many cases. In many cases, the Crown has taken property, jewelry and posessions that were purchased, inherited (either from other British royals or from foreign royal familes) or gifted to numerous members of the royal family in the past.

I know it's true for the Queen, but not sure about the Prince of Wales. His assets are tied up in the Duchy of Cornwall, aren't they?
If Britain becomes a republic, the Duchy of Cornwall reverts to Parliament, or no?

Charles is The Duke of Cornwall and has enjoyed a rather large income (in excess of 10 million pounds) from it each year which he pays taxes on. That income is his and would not revert to the government - not legally, anyway. His stewardship has lead the Duchy to become far more profitable that it ever has been. The Queen also recieves income from the Duchy of Lancaster as she is The Duke (not Duchess) of Lancaster.

The Duchy of Cornwall is by Charter of 1421 held by the Sovereign's eldest son and heir and is not inherited by his children if the holder dies before he inherits the throne. If the heir was a grand child of the monarch or a women they would not be hold the title.

The charter that governs the transmission of the Duchy has no provisions for inheritance by any other method than as the eldest son of the Sovereign. If the monarchy would cease during the Queen's life I doubt that Charles would cease to be the Duke of Cornwall. Without amendment to the Charter he could only cease to be the Duke of Cornwall by his own death or inheritance of the throne, by my reading of the charter.

Both the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster are governed by very different rules than any "mere" peerage. The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the Queen and is inherited seperately from other Crown possessions. The Ducy of Lancaster, which is the Queen's private property, is valued in excess of 300 million pounds. I doubt any decendant of Queen Elizabeth II would need to rent a flat if the country were to become a republic. The Privy Purse funds are all derived from profits from The Duchy of Lancaster which are used to pay for the offical functions of numerous Royals (the Kents, et al).

The Duchy of Cornwall and The Duchy of Lancaster are not typical peerages nor are they Crown Property. They are actual landed estates the only true landed estates that still exist in England. Each is a "county palatine" and are uniquely held and maintained.

The personal wealth of each British monarch since 1399 has been largely the product of their status as The Duke of Lancaster (in addition to inherited wealth from those who were foreign royals). Many items purchased by monarchs using their personal wealth have been siezed and are now part of the Crown Properties (which includes artwork, stamps, jewels, land, ect...)

It's not like they can issue a law that strips them of all their money and property. We can't forget that the European Court recently ordered Greece to compensate King Konstantinos for property that they siezed following the fall of the monarchy there. The case that could arise in from the UK becoming a repuplic without reaching a settlement with the royal family could be massive. So, massive that it could bankrupt the new government. The Bavarian Royals still benefit from the settlement their family recieved when the Kingdom of Bavaria ceased to exist. A similar arragement would be in the best interest of any respectable nation that wouldn't take the route similar to that of Iran or China.

Additionally, I seriously doubt that they would be asked or forced to leave the country. I would imagine that it would be similar to how things worked in any of the 28 former monarchies that make up Germany. The families remain they are wealthy, respected, still hold many assests from their days as reigning families, work real jobs and still, generally, preform "royal" duties such as charity engagements.

It can't have been too hard for Churchill to work something out for Princess Marina, can it? She carried out a full load of engagements, right? In the case of Prince and Princess Michael, it's another matter because Prince Michael has a private sector job, right? And Princess Michael writes her history books, so.... given they don't do engagements anymore, I guess they're just taking up space at KP. #10 KP is a big L-shaped house and can be used for something else, like a residence for William or Harry when they marry.

In the case of Charles predeceasing Camilla if still Prince of Wales, I bet HM would let her continue using Clarence House for her office but she would likely be all the time at Ray Mill, her own private haven no doubt. Highgrove is the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, right? If HM made William Duke of Cornwall in the case of Charles predeceasing HM, I guess Highgrove would automatically be of use to William.

If Charles were to predecease his mother Prince William could not become the Duke of Cornwall. One may only become the Duke of Cornwall if you are both the eldest son (not grandson) of the monarch and heir to the throne. You may be the eldest son without being heir and you can be heir without being the eldest son. The title would remain vacant until William became King and had is own son. That is how the charter that regulates the transmission has worked since 1421. I doubt that the Queen would alter it.

The Queen currently pays the rent (more than 100,000 pounds per year) for the Kensington Palace apartment of Prince Michael out of respect for the fact that they have always preformed numerous charity, offical and public functions which they have to pay for themselves.

Charles is exceptionally wealthy. I am certain that he has a will that will provide for his wife and children in the event of his own death. Camilla will never want for anything if Charles dies.

There is nothing that would prevent William, Harry or Camilla from using the Duchy Home Farm (Highgrove) in the event that Charles should die before his mother. The Duchy would continue to run and be managed the same as it is now.

I suspect that Camilla would become known as HRH Princess Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in the tradition established by the Queen on behalf of widowed royal wives during her reign. However, this is not and cannot be construed as creating them princesses in their own right. Neither, Marina or Alice was created a princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland in their own right. The Queen merely allowed them to be known as such. Camilla could also use the traditional form for a Dowager Duchess if no such arrangement was made for her.

There are plenty of apartments in Windsor, Buckingham, St. James....ect that William or Harry could live in. There is no need to evict the Kent's from KP or Prince Andrew from Royal Lodge. Not to mention, the extinsive holdings of the Crown, The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. There are litearlly thousands of dwellings (many extremely posh) owned by each of the aforementioned entities.

The European Court of Human Rights would never wear that. I think in that situation, it'd be a case of allowing them one private residence such as Sandringham and then leaving them to get on with it. Those over 60 wouldn't get the state pension though as they've never paid for any stamps. The younger ones would be entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance until they found full time work but it depends on how the money is dished out when the Republic comes. I imagine any Royal widows over the age of 60 would be treated with kid gloves.

Sandringham is already a private residence. The Queen owns both Sandrigham and Balmoral outright a new republic would have no say over how these properties are delt with.

In the case of Charles predeceasing Camilla if still Prince of Wales, I bet HM would let her continue using Clarence House for her office but she would likely be all the time at Ray Mill, her own private haven no doubt. Highgrove is the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, right? If HM made William Duke of Cornwall in the case of Charles predeceasing HM, I guess Highgrove would automatically be of use to William.

HM can't create William duke of Cornwall as this title is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch. If this eldest son dies with issue, the title is reserved for the eldest son of the next monarch - in this case William's son. But she can create William The Prince of Wales as this tile is reserved for the heir apparent, eben if this heir is "just" the direct-line grandson of the monarch.

Camilla could then choose to be known as HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales (as William's wife would be The Princess of Wales then) or HRH The Duchess of Cornwall because till William's son marries (and William is then the monarch), there won't be another Duchess of Cornwall. She could not opt for "The Dowager Princess of Wales" as she is not William's mother. I have no doubt which option she would choose.

Makes me even wonder, if pre-planning for the (not so unlikely) event of Charles' predesceasing his mother had something to do with the "duchess of Cornwall"-thing. If Camilla would be known as "The Princess of Wales" instead of "The Duchess of Cornwall", she would in this case automatically become Camilla, Princess of Wales - the only difference to Diana would be the fact that she still has the HRH, of course.
But I can imagine the horror Charles must have felt on imagining himself as not longer there to protect Camilla and Camilla officially having to use the name Camilla, princess of Wales....

I'd have opted for the Duchess-title as well, considering this.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

The European Court of Human Rights would never wear that. I think in that situation, it'd be a case of allowing them one private residence such as Sandringham and then leaving them to get on with it. Those over 60 wouldn't get the state pension though as they've never paid for any stamps. The younger ones would be entitled to Job Seeker's Allowance until they found full time work but it depends on how the money is dished out when the Republic comes. I imagine any Royal widows over the age of 60 would be treated with kid gloves.

Don't forget that the Crown estate would revert back to the former monarch - which would make him (I don't see anyone throwing QEII from her throne) one of the richest men in the world. If the new republic would want to keep the Crown estate, they'd have to fulfill their obligations from the contract between Crown and parliament of the exchange of Crown Estate for civil list und use plus upkeep of Royal palaces for the RF. So either the ex-monarch is extremely rich in his own right or the state continues to take care of him as he was used to. No way out of that without changing the complete laws of inheritance and possession in the Uk - and I can't see this happening.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

How many previous cases are there where ex-monarchs have been allowed to stay in their countries?

Many! Just think France or Germany. Or the Balcan states after the end of the communist regimes. Italy now. Greece is a possibility for Constantine now. Grand Duchess Maria is welcome in Russia... Exile for ex-Royals is definately out.

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

The British Empire was successful in quelling the unrest among rebels and withstanding the ravages of time. Alas… These glorious times passed away.

LOL. Quite the way to describe rather unhappy and bloody times...

__________________'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.

Many! Just think France or Germany. Or the Balcan states after the end of the communist regimes. Italy now. Greece is a possibility for Constantine now. Grand Duchess Maria is welcome in Russia... Exile for ex-Royals is definately out.

Most of the time, this involves royals being allowed back in the country years after the republic was set up, when the population has got used to the republican government and the government is sure that the royals aren't a threat. As I said in my last post, King Simeon was allowed back to Bulgaria after 50 years in exile. If Charles was knocked off the throne, the prospect of being allowed back when he was 120 would be cold comfort. Even William would be an old man under those circumstances. The senior branches of the royal families, at the time the republics were set up, were almost never allowed to stay.

HM can't create William duke of Cornwall as this title is reserved for the eldest son of the monarch. If this eldest son dies with issue, the title is reserved for the eldest son of the next monarch - in this case William's son. But she can create William The Prince of Wales as this tile is reserved for the heir apparent, eben if this heir is "just" the direct-line grandson of the monarch.

The Charter that governs the Duchy of Cornwall stipulates that the title is reserved for the eldest son who is also heir. The monarch doesn't confer the title it passes automatically to an eldest son who is also heir. If the eldest son died before the monarch and didn't have a child of his own then title would automatically pass to the second son of the same monarch. It would not be reserved for the eldest son of the next monarch. The only way it would be reserved for the child of the next monarch would be if their were only daughters left or if the deceased Duke of Cornwall had children.

One must be both the eldest son of the monarch and heir to the throne at the same time to hold the title. If there is an eldest living son of a monarch who is also 1st in line to the throne then he automatically holds the title.

Quote:

Camilla could then choose to be known as HRH Camilla, Princess of Wales (as William's wife would be The Princess of Wales then) or HRH The Duchess of Cornwall because till William's son marries (and William is then the monarch), there won't be another Duchess of Cornwall. She could not opt for "The Dowager Princess of Wales" as she is not William's mother. I have no doubt which option she would choose.

She could not continue to be known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. She would have to opt for the style for a widow irreguardless if someone else held the title or not.

I doubt that she would use the Wales title in her widowhood as she did not use it during her marriage. However, she would most certainly be entitled to be styled as HRH The Dowager Princess of Wales even as the step mother of William. To be a Dowager the current holder of the title must be a direct decendant of your deceased husband. It does not matter if the new Prince of Wales, Duke of Westminster, or other title holder is your stepson. All that matters is that he/she is the child of your late husband. If a brother, nephew or cousin inherits the title then the widow is not premitted to be styled as a dowager.

Quote:

Makes me even wonder, if pre-planning for the (not so unlikely) event of Charles' predesceasing his mother had something to do with the "duchess of Cornwall"-thing. If Camilla would be known as "The Princess of Wales" instead of "The Duchess of Cornwall", she would in this case automatically become Camilla, Princess of Wales - the only difference to Diana would be the fact that she still has the HRH, of course.
But I can imagine the horror Charles must have felt on imagining himself as not longer there to protect Camilla and Camilla officially having to use the name Camilla, princess of Wales....

If she were using the Wales title she would be styled as a Dowager unless another arrangment was made for her similar to Marina and Alice.